Wikipedia:Peer review/Georgetown University/archive1

Georgetown University

I'm looking to make this article consistent with other FA-level University articles, such as Cornell University and Duke University. In reaching GA status, the article went through many changes such that I'm not entirely sure where to go from here. Simple thoughts such as "shorten this section," "move this section to another article," "lengthen this section," "use different formatting here," "this section should be higher/lower," and "why isn't there..." are all appreciated! The article is very well sourced, but a few things I know need to be looked at are the Speakers and visitors section, the Athletics section, the Activism section, the lead paragraph, and the image usage. Thank you in advance. Warmest--Patrick 19:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A short (and incomplete) improvement list:

1.) Done ~~Image: Seal original 200.gif, image:Hoya.jpg, Image:Georgetown_University_nameplate_white_200.gif, and Image:Georgetown University nameplate white 200.gif need fair use rationales.~~
2.) Image:Johncarroll.jpg’s copyright isn’t clear because the link provided is a dead link.
3.) Done WAY too many external links. 8-10 total is the target. I’d get rid of student organization links as well as particular school links. Maybe a link to the student newspaper would be appropriate, though.

4.) Done ~~Don’t start a sentence with a number and be careful to follow all other standard (formal) writing practices (e.g. 84% in the Admissions section should be "Eighty-one percent").~~
5.) I personally think the Student Life section contains too many short sub-sections. I’d seek to combine them, but I don’t think this would be a reason to oppose FA since it’s more personal preference so it’s not imperative.
6.) In the Greek life section, it is stated that Georgetown does not allow fraternities and thus none exist except for service fraternities. This is not true according to my understanding and talking to people that go to Georgetown. While not officially recognized, it should be mentioned that there is an "underground" Greek system. Obviously, this needs to be sourced, but that shouldn’t be hard to find from the campus’ student newspaper. This paragraph just seems misleading to me from what I know (unless my friends have been lying to me!). You don't need to mention the fraternities by name, just mention their existence. I supposed it is possible that they compose such a small segment of the population that they don't merit mentioning.
7.) Definitely get somebody with fresh eyes to do a thorough copyedit of the prose. Haven’t really looked at in detail, but I’m sure there are some errors.
8.) I honestly think the article is a bit short for an article of this magnitude (although it still has the same or more sections). That's an easy problem to fix since I'm sure you have plenty to say about Georgetown. Looking at other university FAs, I think it's considerably shorter although I could be wrong. Looking at the sizes isn't representative because the majority of the size comes from citing sources. Specifically, I'd expand the Athletics and Alumni sections....Again, might just be personal preference.

Overall, I’d say the article is in really good shape. It is sourced copiously and correctly, and all the necessary components for FA status are there. Good luck! -Bluedog423^Talk 01:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I realize I hadn't thanked you for your suggestions, even though I've already put most of them into action. The article used to be very very long, and much of it has been organized into separate articles, but I do notice it's grown a hefty 20k in the last month alone. I replaced the link on Image:Johncarroll.jpg, but I'm not sure we should use it, I'm just sad to loose it because it's both pretty and it provides the context in the history section. Also alumni recently got a trim. I'll look for better external links, but I'm not sure what should be here, maybe that's something other sites can tell me. Thanks again!--Patrick 15:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.^[?] I don't know whether you want to action this or not, remember it's just an automated program.
When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (for example, change kms to km and lbs to lb).
Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.^[?]
Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 14:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]